The act of voting is the right of every American and lies at the very core of our system of government. However, as the methods and machinery of conducting elections have advanced through the years from handwritten paper ballots to mechanical lever machines to optically scanned paper ballots, and even more modem touch screen computers, several deficiencies have developed related to the ability to ensure a fair, accurate, and secure system of recording and tallying voters' intent, and then subsequently verifying the same. Various systems have attempted to address, with varying degrees of success, the problems inherent in ensuring the integrity of the voting system. While some generally-known devices may provide an accurate method of recording a vote, for example a Direct Recording Electronic system (DRE), that very system typically provides no physical auditable trail for post election verification and recounts. And, to the extent the DRE system provides an electronically auditable trail, many voters inherently do not trust that such systems are tamper-proof. In addition, voting technology experts distrust such systems because those systems use the same machine that records the votes to also produce the electronic audit trail. Such systems are not independently verifiable.
More importantly, regardless which type of generally-known system is involved (whether paper, mechanical, or electronic), a significant segment of the population has not benefited by the developments in voting systems, and in fact has continued to be excluded from voting in the same manner as other citizens. Voters who are blind or visually impaired, have language-comprehension difficulties or are illiterate, or have cognitive disabilities have continued to be unable to cast their own ballots privately and independently-without the assistance of a poll worker, family member, or friend.
While all voting systems rely on textual or visual ballots such as those using paper or computer screens, several manufacturers of DRE voting machines have appended to their product a complicated secondary interface which provides audio prompts for voters who are blind or visually impaired to respond by pressing a button or buttons indicating their preference. These existing DRE voting systems comprise machines that are very costly for most jurisdictions to purchase or lease, are very complex to configure and stage prior to conducting an election, must be administered by a specially-trained, highly technical worker, and only record the intent of the voter—they do not typically provide a physical, auditable paper trail, such as a paper ballot. And, as stated above, such systems are therefore not independently verifiable. A physical auditable trail provides counties the ability to inspect the actual ballot cast by the voter and serves as a double check in recounts.
Many existing DRE voting systems require two proprietary machines to function: a control unit and a voting machine. This system architecture results in very expensive deployment costs for jurisdictions that want to implement a precinct-level accessible voting solution, doesn't allow for use of commercially available products that assist the disabled, and makes the logistics of providing curbside voting awkward at best.
Moreover, because of the complexity of these proprietary, computer-based devices, configuration and staging of the machines takes several weeks to perform using proprietary programming tools. The addition of more voting devices only increases the time and costs to complete pre-election staging.
Additionally, because these DRE voting systems are designed only to record the voter's intent, they are required to provide system security and authenticate the voter by using technologies such as “smart cards” that are activated by proprietary control units. The use of these technologies results in a need for highly-trained election officials and precinct workers that must be recruited and trained by the jurisdiction or supplied by the vendor. Municipalities and counties that conduct voting simply cannot supply the number or the type of highly-trained election officials for these systems, and surely cannot supply them in numbers to allow such systems to be used at every precinct. In fact, a recent lawsuit in Washington, D.C., compelled the election entity to purchase over a million dollars worth of audio-capable DRE voting machines so that each precinct would have access to a machine. Despite such a large expenditure, the election entity was still unable to use that equipment during the election because of the inability to find and train workers in the technical procedures necessary to successfully operate the machines.
Moreover, the absence of a physical paper audit trail for existing DRE voting systems has recently called into question the validity of the results in several elections across the country. No current system, DRE or otherwise, that provides an audio ballot interface generates an official paper ballot for physical audit purposes. While several existing products can be altered to generate a paper receipt summarizing the results of the day's voting, no product or system produces an official paper ballot imprinted with a unique identification symbol for each voter that contains their actual selections using the audio ballot interface, and that also contains audit and anti-fraud codes to ensure complete integrity in the voting system, while maintaining voter anonymity.
In addition, an important concern of the challenged voters in the aforementioned consumer segment is the difficulty in learning what candidates and contests will be on the ballot and learning how to navigate and make selections on voting machines including those that may have a secondary audio interface for the ballot.
Currently, there is no means for voters to learn about the voting machines other than at the time of voting on election day. This contributes to apprehension among voters, not to mention long delays while the voter takes time to learn not only the navigation and method for casting a ballot using the audio interface, but also to learn who the candidates are and what contests and issues are involved in the election. The type of navigation system employed in current systems requires special buttons and awkward menu structures that are not intuitive. Most require the user to perceive and interpret physical stimuli (such as button shapes or raised appurtenances) associated with the buttons or keys. Because these devices use unique proprietary user interfaces, the voter must spend time to learn how the device operates before the voter can even begin to cast votes.
The generally-known systems also have failed to accommodate voters who are visually impaired and other challenged voters such as those who have limited knowledge of the English language. Such voters have no convenient way of learning ahead of time which candidates and which election contests will be on their ballot in their precinct. Even in the limited number of jurisdictions that make special efforts to serve the visually impaired and language-challenged citizens, sample ballots that list all candidates in all contests are occasionally prepared in Braille and additional languages other than English. However, the voters must be able to decipher the candidates and contests that will be applicable in their voting district, and must physically go to the election office to pick up the sample ballot. For the vast majority of such voters, this mandate is untenable.
There is recently a growing chorus of public opinion, lawsuits, and legislation that reinforces the awareness of the basic need for citizens with certain conditions such as blindness, visual impairments, cognitive disabilities, illiteracy, and other language-comprehension difficulties (such as limited knowledge of the English language) to cast their own ballots privately and independently without relying on textual or visual ballots such as those using paper or computer screens.
In the current marketplace, there are no voting systems using a simple audio ballot interface which jurisdictions can implement on a precinct-wide level that is also affordable, simple for election officials to configure and stage, simple for voters to use, and which can provide voters the opportunity to preview the actual ballot and practice casting votes in the identical manner in which the actual voting will be conducted, thus allowing voters to be certain that their official ballot was properly cast according to their desires in an efficient and timely manner, and which also provides a physical audit trail.